Allahabad High Court
Tula Ram & Another vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6831 of 2017
Appellants :- Tula Ram & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 379463 of 2017
This application has been moved on behalf of the appellants seeking release on bail who have been convicted and sentenced in S. T. No. 28 of 2012, State versus Tula Ram and another, under Sections 304/34 IPC, P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Moradabad.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellants, learned AGA and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that certain prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so far as the appellants are concerned, they have not deposed against them. Further submission is that when witnesses Lekhraj and Devesh reached the spot, they did not find the appellants there and found only the husband of the deceased which indicates the appellants' innocence and, therefore, the appellants should be released on bail.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of P.W.5, Savita, who is the daughter of the deceased herself, according to whom, her father used to remain under the influence of appellant Mukesh and her uncle Tula Ram, as a result of which often her father used to pick-up quarrel with her mother deceased. On the day of incident, when her mother was in the factory where she worked, Savita got the news of quarrel taking place there on which she rushed and reached the place of occurrence where she saw the appellants Mukesh and Tularam along with her father and also the other co-accused, who is not the appellant, badly beating her mother. The appellants were having lathis and dandas and were using the same just as her father Totaram was using the 'Saria' (Iron-rod) against her mother and they were also crying aloud that they should not allow this lady to remain alive. Savita, the daughter of the deceased tried to save her deceased mother on which she was pushed aside. When her mother fell down, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. From there Lekhraj and Devesh took her to the hospital while Savita also accompanied her. Later on, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court towards the post mortem report, according to which, the deceased incurred not less than 8 injuries on the most vital part of the body, that is to say, on the head of the deceased. It was also emphasized that severity of the blows was such that temporal bones, parietal bone and occipital bones all got fractured. Contention is that with such kind of injuries inflicted upon the deceased, there was no question of her survival. Submission is that the medical evidence is in complete corroboration with the oral evidence and it is not a case where the number of assailants participating in the occurrence was more than the injuries inflicted upon the deceased and where it may be argued that not all of the accused may be said to have caused injuries to the deceased. In fact, the injuries were at least twice the number of the accused persons who assaulted upon the deceased. The argument is that the severity of the blows and the situs of the injuries both indicate that there could not have been any intention than to cause death of the deceased. This appears to be a case in which brute masculine muscle power has been unleashed on a helpless and hapless woman. The incident presents a woeful spectacle of misogynistic injustice inflicting upon weaker sex by those who are otherwise supposed in our society to be the guardians and custodians of their better-halves i.e. women folk. The autopsy report is sufficient to reveal that all the blows landed on the poor lady?s head which virtually got pulverized with most of its bones getting fractured. The blows were lethal and the injuries proved fatal, while the poor daughter could only wail and scream and be a helpless spectator of this morbid display of criminality. The poor daughter being a witness of this brutal attack could not have any earthly reason to depose falsely against her own father and uncles who are the appellants before this Court. There is no such infirmity in her deposition which may attract any valid castigation of the same. If the appellants had fled away by the time, witnesses Lekhraj and Devesh arrived at the spot, this is no reason to hold that the accused-appellants did not participate in the crime. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard, therefore, does not go very far to assail the testimony of Savita, whose evidence is quite cogent and confidence inspiring. In fact, the statement of witness Lekhraj indicates that when he arrived at the spot, he found the deceased lying unconscious which by itself demonstrates that he arrived at a later stage. Conspicuously enough witness Lekhraj has also affirmed the presence of witness Savita on the spot. If certain witnesses did not support the prosecution case in total and turned hostile or if certain witnesses supported the prosecution case only in part that does not go to mean that the testimony of those witnesses who are intact should also be looked down with suspicion. In fact, law on this point is quite settled that untainted testimony can always seek its corroboration from sources which may be called tainted. The testimony of a witness who is not hostile can always draw its support in material particulars from the testimony of witnesses who have been declared hostile or who may be termed only as partially reliable witnesses. There is also no dispute on the proposition of law that a single testimony if found wholly reliable can always constitute a legitimate basis to uphold conviction. In such cases, drawing corroboration is only a rule of prudence and not the need of law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellants have completely failed to carve out a prima facie case in their favour and there does not appear to be any good reason why this Court should lean favourably to restore the appellants? liberty.
In the aforesaid background, the bail application stands rejected
Order on Appeal.
The appeal may be listed for hearing in due course after preparation of the paper-book.
Order Date :- 9.5.2018
CPP/-
